Ok. Even debunking9/11 and structure magazine say that one critical column was enough to globally collapse WTC 7.

But, we have jthomas quoting people from jref who claim it would take thousands of tons of explosives.

Does anyone see the contradiction here?

You're not thinking logically, Griff.

How can you ignore the evidence of what happened to WTC 7 before it collapsed and then pretend that all one had to do was remove one column and
that was it, even when the prior damage to WTC 7 is explicit in the article:

The failure of WTC 1 and WTC 2 sent flaming debris into the
southern face of WTC 7. This impact and fire damage initiated a sequence that would lead to global collapse. Eyewitness observations by building
occupants, NYPD, FDNY and bystanders indicated that the damage was
located on the south face between floors 8 and 18, and that there was a fully involved fire on the south side of floor 7, which included the transfer
elements. From 3:00 to 5:00 PM, fires were still burning in the building, which may explain why it took several hours for it to collapse. The
continued heat of the fire weakened steel structural components until they failed at 5:21 PM, nearly seven hours after the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC
2.

I would have to agree with Whaaa.
I would rather believe those people than some BS gov't "report" started 14 month AFTER the "attacks" happened!! Guess they didn't want to start
an investigation until the latest possible time after we were already in Afghanistan.
Interesting, but look at one of the members on that website who happens to be a a former ATS member after they kicked him off for talking about the
truth!! www.patriotsquestion911.com...

I would believe him as well as the rest of those pilots before anyone else since the whole attack is predicated on "terrorists hijacking planes" and
"flying them into buildings".
Anyone who still believes the official story is probably already too far gone or brainwashed to believe otherwise. The people you need to convince
are our so-called leaders but they mostly ignore it all and the will of the people.
You can check out his interviews online on youtube and on ProjectCamelot, his most recent interview is posted on their website.

The truth will probably never be told to the worldwide community and the perps holding the "scare the population" strings will never allow that info
to get out.

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
NIST is prohibited by law from releasing the structural docs. No one else is entitled to see them.

Why? And please address your answer to Griff, who, being a professional engineer, no doubt knows a lot more about the legality of structural
documentation being typically in public domain than either you or I would.

There is no good reason to essentially classify structural documentation for three buildings that don't even exist anymore, unless you are hiding
something. Especially after they all 3 catastrophically collapsed like no one has ever seen before, killing thousands of people. If it walks like a
duck, talks like a duck....

I hope you also realize that this is no excuse. Because they locked the plans up, you are lacking hard evidence, not abundant
in it! You guys can't post ANY evidence for us, despite asserting there are virtual legions of engineers presenting proof after proof in public
domain. What is the freaking problem? Do you have a logic phobia? Is ATS the only website you can visit on the internet anymore? Where is some
proof?

Engineering backgrounds do help in these matters, but most of the fallacies of 9/11 boil down to high school physics. One major law that is
overlooked is "the path of least resistance." When structures fall, they fall where there is the least resistance. If you watch the videos of the
towers collapse, the first tower to fall has a massive section of building that begins to teeter to the side. We would expect this large section to
fall off to the side, with the rest of the building in tact if the laws of physics apply. However, as this section starts to fall, the entire
building collapses and falls at freefall speed. We could expect the section of building to collapse at free fall speed if it fell off to the side,
however, it didnt, but yet the building still fell at the same rate. How do the official story believers explain this anomoly? How does the building
below offer no resistance unless aided with explosives or some other destructive force?

Dr. Judy Wood offers a great explination at www.drjudywood.com and another hypothesis could be a direct energy weapon. Our military technology is
hundreds of years ahead of the civilian technology, and undoubtedly we have weapons that could pinpoint at large building. This also offers an
explanation for the fineness of dust particles in NYC that day and the weeks to follow.

Another interesting note is that the major proponent of controlled demolition, Steven Jones, also happens to have worked at Los Alamos on Direct
Energy Weapons. Disinformation agent anyone?

Well then, I suggest you review the 5th Amendment and what it says about property rights.

Because contrary to what you seem to believe, the structural docs are NOT the property of the US Guv. They are in posession of them during the
investigation, but this doesn't mean that they are theirs to distribute as they please. They must return ALL property that it receives for its
investigation, after that investigation is over. there are exceptions of course, like guns used during the commission of a crime, etc, but they are
the exception.

The guv releasing the docs would be a violation to rights guaranteed in the Constitution, and I'm sure you're not for that.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.